1 CGHC010307162026 2026:CGHC:36958 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6025 of 2026 1 - Ram Gopal Tengwer Son Of Fekhu Lal Tengwer Aged About 41 Years Lecturer (L.B.), Govt. Higher Secondary School Dhaniya, Block Masturi, District Bilaspur, (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Secretary Department Of Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Commissioner-Cum-Director Directorate Of Panchayat, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. For State : Mr. Shahil Singh, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 18/08/2026 1. By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.08.19 17:19:24 +0530 2 following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide revised pay scale and arrears to the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 2005. After completion of 8 years of service petitioner became entitled for the benefit of revised pay scale in the year 2013, however, petitioner was not extended the benefit from 2013, but only after absorption, benefit of revised pay scale has been extended to him. It is further contended that according to the decision of Mukesh Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 2530 of 2017) decided on 26.11.2017, petitioner is also entitled for the arrears of the revised pay scale, from the date of his entitlement i.e. after completion of 8 years. He submits that petitioner may be permitted to submit fresh representation before the respondent authorities, and direction be issued to respondent No. 4 to consider and take decision on the representation, at the earliest, within specified time frame. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State submits that in view of the limited prayer 3 made by the counsel for petitioner, he is having no objection. 4. On due consideration of the submission of counsel for the respective parties, writ petition at this stage is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before respondent No. 4 and if such a representation is submitted, the respondent No. 4 shall decide the same, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of representation, keeping in mind the decision of this Court in case of Mukesh Kumar Patel (supra). 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep